4 ms·

Unpreventable loss of life may not be 100% unacceptable. But ignoring signs and allowing preventable loss of life is. Not taking action after having reasonable

Unpreventable loss of life may not be 100% unacceptable. But ignoring signs and allowing preventable loss of life is. Not taking action after having reasonable reason to do so is actually criminal negligence [0] in some cases. > failure to foresee and so allow otherwise avoidable dangers to manifest. In some cases this failure can rise to the level of willful blindness, where the individual intentionally avoids adverting to the reality of a situation. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_negligence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_negligence

shawnz 8y ago
What's reasonable? Some people refuse to fly altogether due to the risks. Are they reasonable? I don't think so, personally, but it's not a black and white issue like you're implying. Every accident is preventable if you just demand less from the underlying technology.
- close04 8y ago
  Your comparison is exaggerated. Two crashes of the same model and similar circumstances in less than 5 months, for a model that's under 2 years old and only 350 built in total raises suspicions. It's not a good record. The very fact that the suspicion exists is enough to back up the reasonable claim. Whatever the problem is (design, pilot training, etc.) it's hurting this model and its passengers so it should be investigated without risking more lives. Precautions are always based on suspicions. Otherwise they're no longer a precaution. With aviation experts, governments, and even airlines (bearing the costs) agreeing with the grounding measure I think I'm not too far off. The list in the article above just gets bigger. The current situation lends a lot of credibility to the idea that the plane might be to blame. Grounding them could be expensive. Not grounding them could be criminal. Which one would you choose if you had to? Also this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19369485 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19369485
  - shawnz 8y ago
    I agree with you in this particular case. What I was arguing against is the grandparent's claim that the aviation industry doesn't make any tradeoffs involving human life. It is absolutely necessary for them to make such tradeoffs as I was trying to show with my hyperbole.

shawnz 8y ago

What's reasonable? Some people refuse to fly altogether due to the risks. Are they reasonable? I don't think so, personally, but it's not a black and white issue like you're implying. Every accident is preventable if you just demand less from the underlying technology.

close04 8y ago
Your comparison is exaggerated. Two crashes of the same model and similar circumstances in less than 5 months, for a model that's under 2 years old and only 350 built in total raises suspicions. It's not a good record. The very fact that the suspicion exists is enough to back up the reasonable claim. Whatever the problem is (design, pilot training, etc.) it's hurting this model and its passengers so it should be investigated without risking more lives. Precautions are always based on suspicions. Otherwise they're no longer a precaution. With aviation experts, governments, and even airlines (bearing the costs) agreeing with the grounding measure I think I'm not too far off. The list in the article above just gets bigger. The current situation lends a lot of credibility to the idea that the plane might be to blame. Grounding them could be expensive. Not grounding them could be criminal. Which one would you choose if you had to? Also this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19369485 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19369485
- shawnz 8y ago
  I agree with you in this particular case. What I was arguing against is the grandparent's claim that the aviation industry doesn't make any tradeoffs involving human life. It is absolutely necessary for them to make such tradeoffs as I was trying to show with my hyperbole.